Steam Forums and Pride Month

[SneakyErvin]

17 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I mean I agree, just that by definition, uneducated people are uneducated. There are a lot of people in this thread and life in general, that say things or have opinions, that should make anyone step back and think "It kind of sounds like you don't actually have the best or most thorough understanding on this topic" but then you can also sometimes be like "well yeah, thats just their opinion, not everyone can have the time or money to learn about everything to the same degree". Education in many places isn't easy or cheap or convenient. There are lots of topics I am very ignorant over but might want to share a humble opinion on. 

Sometimes certain people being uneducated is a part of the plan. Education quality can differ and vary. As can access to it. My life circumstances are pretty fortunate when it comes to education for example, but its also one of those things, I may not realise or understand until after as opposed to before. Certain countries have a pretty strong track record of wanting to mislead, misinform, and miseducate its people. So for me personally, it can be a bit hard to be too harsh on some of the people in those systems, when you could argue they are, somewhat victims of that cycle. Granted its also more complex and nuanced discussion and issue. 

Certain celebrities I am a little bit more harsh on, because they should have the time, money and access, and opportunity to be better and more knowledgable than most. Its just that many often pursue more money, fame and celebrity, and some influence and power. You could then argue that they may not have necessarily started with the best head start as well, which eh, that starts getting a bit more complex/nuanced as well. 

I agree to a point. But if they've made it as far as the internet there should be no real reason to not do some bit of research on a thing they have a strong opinion about. However, in "real" education, which they might not have had access to, people often learn how to be critical towards the source of information. That part is often something that goes straight over the head of many because they stumble on something that shares and validates their "uneducated" opinion. Though, there is also no reason to not hit up a library if you have strong opinions and interest in a subject.

Yeah the misleading and miseducation etc. is certainly an issue. And I think it shows really well in the US where education is both lacking in quality and in what subjects are factual and objective. There are many things that are made classes in the US that would never pass the bar in the EU, much of those extremely philosophical subjects that have become popular over the last few years. Which doesnt teach about a wide view on it either, but a colored version that leaves little to no room for the students to form their own final opinion on the subject. If a teacher here in sweden would try to teach in a subjective and partial manner they'd likely be out head first, since here it is practically all about giving the students the information and then let them form their opinion based on that no matter what it leads to. Which is also why private schools are extremely scrutinized.

Yep there are those, and then there are those that just say the most stupid S#&$ in their public position without any real consequences simply because they are famous and priviledged, no matter which side they belong to. Like not that long ago a certain "ghost" person and friends didnt only just make extremely bigot comments towards a group of people in comparison to her own, they also kept pulling another persons name through the dirt, straight defamation, even though the person had been cleared from all charges. And all of their ignorant asses still retain their position where they provide "news" to the american people. 

18 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Generally agree. Personally, I think its important when interacting with other people, or in discussions, to sort of remember to treat them like an actual human, and to not just try and disagree with one or two of their points. Its often important to talk to them about the stuff you do agree with them on, as well as potentially disagree, because then you actually may understand each other better, and also just have some basic respect towards them too. Its also okay to not agree with someone about every single thing. Differences of opinion are often fine and important. I can understand why someones it can happen though, sometimes people don't put out enough points for someone to find middle ground, sometimes people can be defensive because of bad past experiences and so just expect to argue aggressively because they think the other person is going to argue aggressively, they lack familiarity, or they just anticipate bad faith arguments from others and so just hone in on what they disagree with. 

Since I know you are pretty chill and good faith, and you talk with more nuance than many, I personally probably wouldn't just hone in on one of your points to just disagree with. Ideally, more conversations could be like that, but sadly online conversations can quickly become hostile arguments instead of conversations where some disagreement is fine but not necessarily mean that it can't also be a civil or chill conversation too. 

There is a real life situation here that kinda ties into that. A little while ago it was revealed by a TV channel that the Sweden Democrats used anonymous account online to bad mouth the opposition. This has then gone back and forth for a while and yesterday the party had sent out a bunch of SMS messages to voters in parts of Stockholm due to the EU election happening today. The message practically said that people should not just think about the news coverage thing, but the bigger picture when they decide whom to place the vote on. Of course this was the big focus of the Social Democrats, saying how terrible this apporach was just the day before the election. Then the new had asked the Moderate leader, our party that is practically straight in the middle, and he said "Clearly the Sweden Democrats hate TV4 (the channel revealing the news) and the Social Democrats clearly hate the Sweden Democrates, I however prefer to focus on things that matter". And that really shows where the world is heading, when big parties snow in on such trivial things just because it allows them to take a jab and disagree with the opponent, while there are certainly more pressing matters that should need attention.

Yeah the thing with me is that if someone would write me off for having one specific opinion out of many they really wouldnt know what they write off. Since my opinions practically range from the extreme left to the extreme right and is always rooted in the individual subject at hand and nothing else.

18 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Yeah transparency helps a lot as well. Thats often another issue that leads to complications, the lack of and the ways people preemptively use deceit or even other people as collateral or proxy. 

Ha, glad you agree about looking after the small devils/gods. 

Random anecdote to share with you about cats. At my old home, I was feeling a bit sad about leaving it, because I use to look after some of the strays in my area. I was on friendly enough terms, that I could get some of them to accompany me so they could get neutered, vaccinated, released, (the sort of standard in my area, if they are feral at least, if they are disowned, domesticated etc its different) but most of the ones I was familiar with, were a bit too suspicious and weary around humans. I wasn't the only one in my neighbourhood who looked after them, but was a bit worried about some of the more antisocial types. 

Then one day I was in my yard, and the biggest cat I have ever seen walked up to me, and started being very affectionate. Also the cat only had 3 legs. Also my own cat warmed up to it a lot as well. It was short hair type, and well cared for, and definitely someones actual cat, based on how healthy and clean and large it was, but yeah. Very friendly, calm, giant three legged cat. All the other cats seem to respect it for its size, but I also took that as a sign that I probably had a neighbour who was good at looking after the strays as well. as their own cat (I imagine life is a bit tougher if you are big with only 3 legs). 

All the best to you, cheers! 

Yep agreed!

Heh cats have a special place in my heart. I had a near charcoal black 75% persian that lived with me for 16 years, got it as a 6 weeks old fluffy little thing when I was 8 and it passed when I was 24. It is the one relative I've missed the most out of all that have passed away.

I gotta say lovely story. Warms my heart. We had a legend of a cat here in town. He used to roam all over, my grandmother frequently had him visit her at one side of the town and I ran into him at times all the way on the other side. And since he recognized me from my grandmothers place he used to end up following me home at times. He had a home of his own and an owner, but he could be away for weeks just hanging out with others. So it often ended up with people taking him in for some food and a short nap, then he was at the door meowing, meaning he was ready to move on in his adventures, or head home. Sometime he spent the night, sometimes not. Pain in the hiney when he had the idea to go on with his adventures in the middle of the night, since it ment having to run down all the stairs in the appartment building in order to let him out. Otherwise he wouldnt shut up.

21 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Because they can. Same reason why people can bully, or have an Irish Parade.

There's no big mystery or long debate needed. 

If they have the resources, they will be used. 

I'd love for the Irish to have a month long parade, but maybe they need funding...you'd have to ask your local organizations.

Edit: Everyone has different "scales". We're using our own scales.

That would be all fine and dandy if we were talking about these things being purely self sufficient. But we arent, since in most cases it also involves things like tax money. Where the whole dilemma comes into the picture, why should some see better representation than others for their cause when the money is coming from everyone.

And I'm not really sure how we ended up with the Irish in the conversations. My point is about minorities. I'm not speaking for myself as a straight white male for instance. I'm talking about minority natives for instance, no matter if we look at the US, northern europe, the OZ or whatever. And similar things to that which could certainly use lengthy times of awareness. Or month long awareness for the near 50% of our population where a large part is persecuted simply because they happened to be born in a specific region of the world and not another.

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

6 hours ago, Zimzala said:

Nope.

Not even close.

This person was interested in what might happen, they did not call for anything.

This is why so many people get so outraged, they make things up in their heads to be mad about that don't exist.

This is called 'having a chip on your shoulder'.

But in a way, he's still encouraging that DE or Valve step in to shut down the forums. So basically, he's encouraging and supporting people getting censored over speech he doesn't like

[Caerith]

The word to describe the latest argument is "hypocrisy." 

These forums and Valve's forums have terms of service that, in one way or another, prohibit hate speech.  DE is not the government, Valve is not the government, but they have their own rules for their own places and those rules prohibit the kind of speech that is frequently on display.  If you don't like the terms of service of the forums that you visit, then, instead of trying to "cancel" people who expect the terms of service to be enforced, maybe consider going somewhere else.

There are other platforms where hate speech is protected speech, entire nations where hate speech is protected speech.  Bigotry is more protected than LGBTQ pretty much everywhere, making for no shortage of "safe spaces" to cry about the mere existence of LGBTQ people. 

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

39 minutes ago, Caerith said:

The word to describe the latest argument is "hypocrisy." 

These forums and Valve's forums have terms of service that, in one way or another, prohibit hate speech.  DE is not the government, Valve is not the government, but they have their own rules for their own places and those rules prohibit the kind of speech that is frequently on display.  If you don't like the terms of service of the forums that you visit, then, instead of trying to "cancel" people who expect the terms of service to be enforced, maybe consider going somewhere else.

You can always block or mute the person and move on with your life. Its the internet. If it happened in real life, sure, that would be a bigger issue.

 

Also, its not as easy as you think to say what's hate speech and what isn't. Because speech is abstract. I'll give you a question, would saying something bad about White people or straight people classify as hate speech for you? Because for some people on your side, they would say that talking bad about White people or straight people wouldn't be hate speech because of "White privilege" or "straight privilege" or whatever.

You don't have to like what someone else says or someone else's opinion. But when you call for their speech to be taken down or even try to ruin their lives, don't you think that doesn't exactly make you the good guy anymore?

We were forced into these DEI and woke stuff, we didn't want these things in our faces, especially when we just wanted to relax, get away from the problems of society, and just enjoy our time with video games and/or movies, anime, you name it. This is all happening because we are being forced to accept things and play by these rules that we just didn't want in the first place, or just didn't exactly care much about.

49 minutes ago, Caerith said:

Bigotry is more protected than LGBTQ pretty much everywhere,

Like in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even in China, correct?

Because a lot of times in the West, people who spread anti-LGBT stuff tend to get shunned, humiliated, and even laughed at by others. This isn't the 1950s anymore where gay people have to fear everything. Like I said, the vast majority of the West just doesn't care if you're gay

[Caerith]

Have we moved onto the "violence doesn't happen against LGBTQ in the West" section of the playbook now? 

It's always the same, deny history while trying to repeat it. 

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

On 2024-06-02 at 6:00 AM, Silenzeio said:

I'm gonna be Captain Obvious when i say that Steam forums are already a toxic pit. But since the very second of Pride items coming to the in game market, the Steam forums of Warframe have just devolved into a toxic mess of anti-Pride screaming. 

Be interested in seeing if DE or Valve will step in to shut the forums down. 

I havent seen the forums youre talking about so I can't comment on what you're seeing but even if there's some people being obnoxious there "lets shut down the forums entirely" seems like an L take over reaction.

 

[Genitive]

3 hours ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Because a lot of times in the West, people who spread anti-LGBT stuff tend to get shunned, humiliated, and even laughed at by others.

Oh no, won't someone think about the poor bigots...

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

On 2024-06-10 at 12:46 AM, SneakyErvin said:

I agree to a point. But if they've made it as far as the internet there should be no real reason to not do some bit of research on a thing they have a strong opinion about. However, in "real" education, which they might not have had access to, people often learn how to be critical towards the source of information. That part is often something that goes straight over the head of many because they stumble on something that shares and validates their "uneducated" opinion. Though, there is also no reason to not hit up a library if you have strong opinions and interest in a subject.

 

This slightly touches and relates to one of my favourite topics and thats how people attribute success and effort to themselves and others. So what would you consider the reason that people who have made it to the internet, have no reason to do some research about topics they may have strong opinions over? 

Are you familiar with some of the ideas and studies around human requirements and intuition for alleviating boredom, as in needing some sort of entertainment or respite from continuous work, obligations, and that type of monotony? So much so that in many scenarios, it can be more important/prioritised over sustenance. Or the ideas and dialogue around the idea of the internet/internet access as being considered and implemented in some places as a human right. Since it can tie to ideas around freedom of expression and opinion, as well as some other general ideas. Like being more and more integrated to many countries education systems, jobs as well. Now for some that idea might sound preposterous, especially those that lived before the Internet was generally widespread and available, but sometimes that is just how standards rise. Well I mean on a country to country basis as well. Different countries, different attitudes and ideas on human rights. 

So for some, the Internet is basically just like a television. More for entertainment than anything else. They worked really hard all day, and now they are sleepy and tired, and it might not be a good reason, but it's a real reason, because many of those people will want to share an opinion about stuff, and even a little bit of research is too much effort and time. Human history is filled with people with strong opinions who don't do research. Now, obviously that's a bit unfortunate, and reality would probably look quite different if otherwise, but ehh. Like there are also a lot of jobs that have been studied and looked into, where the more time you give employees, the more productive they would be. Except many people in those jobs, will maintain that working people harder is more effective... So research shows one thing, but even when people have a strong incentive to do research, they won't, because of a strong opinion. Many people also respond way more positively to people having strong opinions, because some people think that equals confidence, when we usually generally know that strong opinions, can often just be overcompensation and a poor stand in for actual competence. 

It's why often when it comes to certain learning and teaching ideas, certain things are often considered important to involve, and one of those is time. Like giving people time to process and digest information, go over the same material multiple times, make sure that rest and learning is balanced, get the learner to teach what they learn, so they can understand it enough to then pass on the learned ideas, to others, and if they can do that successfully and well, usually a good sign that they are understanding the lessons well. Except how many people will see someone say something like "this is important because it relates to socioeconomic mobility" will either disagree or agree a bit then spend 3 or 4 hours learning about the in and outs of socioeconomic mobility? Or do they just want to give a strong opinion? 

Like to even learn general things efficiently, someone also needs to know a little bit about how to learn well, and if they don't... 

To be super clear, I am not endorsing that, and personally I think as a society, we don't emphasize and prioritise critical thinking enough as it pertains to new technology. New technology is neutral, but it can be a tool for good and bad, and often a lot of that bad, could have been avoided if people knew better alas. Oh and I forget one other variable, that grows with time, and that's the ability to discern good data and ideas, from the overwhelming amount of junk regurgitated, bad or junk data and ideas. In many ways, it can be hard for people to use the Internet as a tool for research and being better informed and discerning... unless you already have a strong solid basis in knowing how to apply critical thinking to the info that comes your way, unfiltered, requiring you to filter it. 

 

On 2024-06-10 at 12:46 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Though, there is also no reason to not hit up a library if you have strong opinions and interest in a subject.

 

Agreed, but this is also where I was really personally fortunate. Since I grew up with a library near me, and if not? I might have ended up as a statistic or negative example of a person. I loved learning from an early age, and it stuck with me all that time. Unfortunately quite a lot of people have bad experiences with learning, schools, education, due to multiple reasons, and its, well its a shame. I also then got a scholarship because I I probably spent so much time in a library learning, and got access to an even better library! Not all are as fortunate as I am though, its not something people should take for granted. 

 

On 2024-06-10 at 12:46 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Yeah the misleading and miseducation etc. is certainly an issue. And I think it shows really well in the US where education is both lacking in quality and in what subjects are factual and objective. There are many things that are made classes in the US that would never pass the bar in the EU, much of those extremely philosophical subjects that have become popular over the last few years. Which doesnt teach about a wide view on it either, but a colored version that leaves little to no room for the students to form their own final opinion on the subject. If a teacher here in sweden would try to teach in a subjective and partial manner they'd likely be out head first, since here it is practically all about giving the students the information and then let them form their opinion based on that no matter what it leads to. Which is also why private schools are extremely scrutinized.

 

Makes me think of all the places that don't want to teach evolution, or places where a politician will talk about tax cuts for "everyone", but then actual data and looking at actual details of such bills, end up clearly showing that only very certain wealthy benefitted from such tax cuts, but then people still getting hype or supporting that politician regardless. Or the encroachment of PragerU into many of the USA' actual education systems. Or and this is more world wide, peoples understanding of socioeconomic mobility and how this relates to ideas and perceptions of success, value, worth, effort and then how those relate to everything else, like how deserves what and why, how financial systems should work, how resources should be divided and so on. Then how many's people perception is the opposite of reality, but even in the places with the best socioeconomic mobility, things can still be better (Sweden is usually quite up there), and one reason for that is indeed because of your guys education system being relatively better than a lot. 

 

On 2024-06-10 at 12:46 AM, SneakyErvin said:

There is a real life situation here that kinda ties into that. A little while ago it was revealed by a TV channel that the Sweden Democrats used anonymous account online to bad mouth the opposition. This has then gone back and forth for a while and yesterday the party had sent out a bunch of SMS messages to voters in parts of Stockholm due to the EU election happening today. The message practically said that people should not just think about the news coverage thing, but the bigger picture when they decide whom to place the vote on. Of course this was the big focus of the Social Democrats, saying how terrible this apporach was just the day before the election. Then the new had asked the Moderate leader, our party that is practically straight in the middle, and he said "Clearly the Sweden Democrats hate TV4 (the channel revealing the news) and the Social Democrats clearly hate the Sweden Democrates, I however prefer to focus on things that matter". And that really shows where the world is heading, when big parties snow in on such trivial things just because it allows them to take a jab and disagree with the opponent, while there are certainly more pressing matters that should need attention.

 

Sounds spicy, plus its all webcast right?

 

On 2024-06-10 at 12:46 AM, SneakyErvin said:

Heh cats have a special place in my heart. I had a near charcoal black 75% persian that lived with me for 16 years, got it as a 6 weeks old fluffy little thing when I was 8 and it passed when I was 24. It is the one relative I've missed the most out of all that have passed away.

I gotta say lovely story. Warms my heart. We had a legend of a cat here in town. He used to roam all over, my grandmother frequently had him visit her at one side of the town and I ran into him at times all the way on the other side. And since he recognized me from my grandmothers place he used to end up following me home at times. He had a home of his own and an owner, but he could be away for weeks just hanging out with others. So it often ended up with people taking him in for some food and a short nap, then he was at the door meowing, meaning he was ready to move on in his adventures, or head home. Sometime he spent the night, sometimes not. Pain in the hiney when he had the idea to go on with his adventures in the middle of the night, since it ment having to run down all the stairs in the appartment building in order to let him out. Otherwise he wouldnt shut up.

 

Oh, sorry to hear about their passing, but happy you got so long with them. 16 is pretty impressive! Sounds like it was basically your childhood friend really. 

Hah, that second one sounds like one of the tom cats in my area. Very loud, use to see it a lot in different places, pretty sure it survived of scraps from multiple places, but also a bit too aggressive. 

Thanks for the convo. 

 

[SneakyErvin]

10 hours ago, Caerith said:

Bigotry is more protected than LGBTQ pretty much everywhere, making for no shortage of "safe spaces" to cry about the mere existence of LGBTQ people. 

That isnt true. People are free to not like something, no matter what it is, they are free to express that dislike aswell. What they arent allowed is when they start inciting people to act on it, or take action themselves, or start spreading propaganda etc. that targets a group with defamation and similar. Mostly, if it can be proven that hate was involved in the crime, the sentence if often higher than if not.

8 hours ago, Caerith said:

Have we moved onto the "violence doesn't happen against LGBTQ in the West" section of the playbook now? 

It's always the same, deny history while trying to repeat it. 

One could also scew it as easily and say the LGBTQ+ community has a high percentage of mass murderers that like to target schools. Since it wasnt too long ago a transperson went on a massmurder rampage at a school in the US. And a few years back there was this nutjob that went around and stabbed immigrants with a sword at a Swedish school, and as evidence have piled up he was persumably gay considering the conversations that were found from his time in SWToR.

Things arent just black and white. It isnt like straight people run around and plan violent acts against your community. The crimes against that community come from the same people that take part in violent crimes for other things already. You have neo-nazi factions, but also because this is about non-straight people, you end up with all the extreme macho gangbangers, aswell as religious crazies from various different faiths crawling out the woodwork to participate in the violence.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

10 hours ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Also, its not as easy as you think to say what's hate speech and what isn't. Because speech is abstract. I'll give you a question, would saying something bad about White people or straight people classify as hate speech for you? Because for some people on your side, they would say that talking bad about White people or straight people wouldn't be hate speech because of "White privilege" or "straight privilege" or whatever.

 

You are not asking me, but I can answer for you. 

It really depends on the context and actual specifics. For example lets say that you have a situation where a school invites a special guest to talk to some students in a class, they are really young, around 7 to 8. its recorded, and the guest says something along the lines of "its your duty, if you see a white person, to inflict violence upon them. They will not hesitate to inflict violence to you, so you should get the first hit in. Hurt them, injure them, leave them for dead. Please visit my website, it has details about how inferior the white man is, and how we should eradicate them, as well as tips on how to sexually and physically assault them". Thats obviously hate speech. They would likely face multiple severe repercussions (whoever invited them probably as well). Well, depending on the country. 

Now different example, guest is talking to older teens, and makes some jokes about white people having no rhyme, but then a self depreciating joke about how they also have no rhythm either. Host could be white or not, at most, the joke could be unfunny, generic and poorly delivered. Not hate speech though. 

Are there more examples which may be more grey, and complicated than my two extremes? Potentially and likely yes, but this is where I would have to hear them to say, and also why we have experts. Some people actually are better with speech, laws, ideas than others. Speech can be abstract, but also not, though I am not sure exactly what you mean, so I won't try to address further without clarification. 

What side do you mean? Which people? Also do you mean how some people academically speaking, use certain definitions of say racism, as involving inherent power structures. So say hypothetically in the USA, where being white is the majority, that the power structures that exist, are designed and supported in a way to protect the interests of some, more than others, there is a distinction between a group of police officers being found targeting black neighbourhoods, acting unprofessionally, and using excessive for leading to the death of a black individual, when all evidence points to such an individual not being guilty, liable or at fault for what occurred, but the officers themselves, even if found guilty, may only suffer trivial soft punishments. So systemic abuse, from some who may be in the majority of relative positions of power, abusing a minority, abusing their power, and being relatively protected and pardoned, for various reasons to do within said system. A distinction between that and say, you have two poor minorities, one an aggressor who harms the other, and was recorded shouting out racial slurs. 

Both could be used to said to be examples of racism for some, but some may like to distinguish one as racism, and the other as prejudice and even potentially a hate crime, bot not necessarily racism, because it lacks the element of systemic abuse, power structures, discrimination. Personally, I usually use the application of both being racism, I would just make use of the word systemic racism in one, but not the other. Mind you, usually if you ask someone who might not think one is an example of racism, if you ask them to clarify and explain what they mean, and if you bring up minority on minority violence and crime, they usually won't be in support of that or anything or try to undermine it, they may just use different phrasing. Or they may even think one is racism, (informally), and the other is racism (more academically as relevant to whatever country they are applying ideas like power structure to). 

Likewise, to paraphrase what you said, "speech is abstract", sometimes its not easy. 

 

11 hours ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Like in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even in China, correct?

Because a lot of times in the West, people who spread anti-LGBT stuff tend to get shunned, humiliated, and even laughed at by others. This isn't the 1950s anymore where gay people have to fear everything. Like I said, the vast majority of the West just doesn't care if you're gay

 

Do you know what V-Coding is? Disclaimer, if you don't know, I would actually prefer you don't know or find out. So don't engage your curiosity. Do you have a good comprehensive understanding and read of the various statistics for different LGBQT+ groups are? Like around abuse, assault, violent acts towards, sex trafficking, especially in comparison to those who are in the majority respectively? Do you know what Broken Arm Syndrome is?

Do you know what gay/trans panic defence is? in the UK its sometimes known as the Portsmouth defence, Australia "homosexual advance defence" and whilst in many places it was a thing and then banned/stopped being a thing, in many places its ban, is still relatively recently. In fact, I actually don't know for certain which States in the USA, have banned this, or not banned it, I am a little behind on that, my bad. Basically though, it was/is a way for some people to get lighter sentences, if they kill trans/gay people, for a variety of reasons. Like potentially a nuanced issue, for example, if anyone, gay, trans, straight, CIS, sexually attacks another person... Grounds for someone to use self defence right? Except it turned into a bit of a ethics issue, and sham defence, because in many places the law was specifically only about and for trans or gay people specifically, and could include, even include neutral or peaceful situations, where a straight person was "mistaken" or assumed someone was something else, and panicked and murdered them, without them doing anything. Or engaging with them, but setting up weird conditions. Like wanting to watch them masturbate but no eye contact, because the person who is watching, isn't actually gay, but if the gay person looks at them, well... then they deserve to die, and societally we should let them get community service sentence, because the gay person clearly broke the rules by making eye contact and so the guy who violently murdered was... justified? Also thats me mocking that idea, and hence why in most forward thinking countries and States dumb legal laws, were banned/removed. 

So when you say stuff like "Like I said, the vast majority of the West just doesn't care if you're gay" with genuine respect, and kindness, and with no assumption, that I personally know you, nor would I claim to. When you say stuff like that though, it sort of just seems like you don't know history that well, or law, or statistics, or many LGBQT people that well. Though thats just my impression, and I acknowledge I could be wrong. Also even if hypothetically I weren't, I don't think that means anything necessarily negative about you as a person or your character, Is it possible though, that you might not know other peoples experiences as well as they might know them from first hand experience, as to why you make such claims? 

Hope you have a good day, all the same, take care. 

 

 

[SneakyErvin]

40 minutes ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

This slightly touches and relates to one of my favourite topics and thats how people attribute success and effort to themselves and others. So what would you consider the reason that people who have made it to the internet, have no reason to do some research about topics they may have strong opinions over? 

Are you familiar with some of the ideas and studies around human requirements and intuition for alleviating boredom, as in needing some sort of entertainment or respite from continuous work, obligations, and that type of monotony? So much so that in many scenarios, it can be more important/prioritised over sustenance. Or the ideas and dialogue around the idea of the internet/internet access as being considered and implemented in some places as a human right. Since it can tie to ideas around freedom of expression and opinion, as well as some other general ideas. Like being more and more integrated to many countries education systems, jobs as well. Now for some that idea might sound preposterous, especially those that lived before the Internet was generally widespread and available, but sometimes that is just how standards rise. Well I mean on a country to country basis as well. Different countries, different attitudes and ideas on human rights. 

So for some, the Internet is basically just like a television. More for entertainment than anything else. They worked really hard all day, and now they are sleepy and tired, and it might not be a good reason, but it's a real reason, because many of those people will want to share an opinion about stuff, and even a little bit of research is too much effort and time. Human history is filled with people with strong opinions who don't do research. Now, obviously that's a bit unfortunate, and reality would probably look quite different if otherwise, but ehh. Like there are also a lot of jobs that have been studied and looked into, where the more time you give employees, the more productive they would be. Except many people in those jobs, will maintain that working people harder is more effective... So research shows one thing, but even when people have a strong incentive to do research, they won't, because of a strong opinion. Many people also respond way more positively to people having strong opinions, because some people think that equals confidence, when we usually generally know that strong opinions, can often just be overcompensation and a poor stand in for actual competence. 

I think the lack of research has alot to do with people just wanting to have "fun". Like you say it is much like television for them. That they think they have an idea that is correct and dont want to spend time on checking if it is correct or not. Also I think it comes down to them not having to face consequences of being wrong if they are, since no one knows them on the other side of the screen. Kinda like all the toxic people in PvP games that can just be as vile as possible because they wont end up in the real life situation where they might end up loosing their teeth. 

Many also come to the internet from an already exsisting group of equals. So they are already in the mindset that they are correct because they surround themselves with people that are of the same opinion day out and day in. I think it is why I'm so open, since my friend circles all the way back since my school days have been made up of people from both corners of the ring aswell as the ref in the center heh. And we always got along when together, even if the ends werent normaly friends, they shared friends within the group and managed to get along due to it. And I guess parts of that was also because it wasnt so easy for them to be an ass towards the other when everyone was around to observe it, so whatever went down would have consequences. Unlike online, where no one will really know.

And we can really say how what you say about internet access is true. Because we have all the restrictive countries that want to limit what you can do online, since it allows for people in less educated places to reach out, learn about the world and even start revolutions. It's why some countries (I wont mention which ones, but most likely know) have their own "search engines" etc. to show just appropriate content that falls inline with what they want people to be aware of. IMO internet should be a human right considering what it can provide the individual. Or if we look at the Ukraine conflict, how much an external free source for internet has done when their own wasnt available. If I was Musk I'd make sure to cover the whole planet in Starlink so everyone has access to internet, even in the darkest and most obscure places.

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

It's why often when it comes to certain learning and teaching ideas, certain things are often considered important to involve, and one of those is time. Like giving people time to process and digest information, go over the same material multiple times, make sure that rest and learning is balanced, get the learner to teach what they learn, so they can understand it enough to then pass on the learned ideas, to others, and if they can do that successfully and well, usually a good sign that they are understanding the lessons well. Except how many people will see someone say something like "this is important because it relates to socioeconomic mobility" will either disagree or agree a bit then spend 3 or 4 hours learning about the in and outs of socioeconomic mobility? Or do they just want to give a strong opinion? 

Like to even learn general things efficiently, someone also needs to know a little bit about how to learn well, and if they don't... 

To be super clear, I am not endorsing that, and personally I think as a society, we don't emphasize and prioritise critical thinking enough as it pertains to new technology. New technology is neutral, but it can be a tool for good and bad, and often a lot of that bad, could have been avoided if people knew better alas. Oh and I forget one other variable, that grows with time, and that's the ability to discern good data and ideas, from the overwhelming amount of junk regurgitated, bad or junk data and ideas. In many ways, it can be hard for people to use the Internet as a tool for research and being better informed and discerning... unless you already have a strong solid basis in knowing how to apply critical thinking to the info that comes your way, unfiltered, requiring you to filter it. 

Yep. It is one of the reason probably why many universities tend to have clear weeks in preperation for tests. So the students have plenty of time to go over their material the best as they can. It majorly screwed me over when I studied to become a teacher years back. Got my practitioners period to fall inline with my study week period before a test and it completely messed everything up. Full time work combined with heavy study just didnt pan out at all for me. So being able to learn in order to pass the test and then also hopefully take some of it with me was near impossible. As you say, how many will spend the time, I think they'd spend minimal time just in order to have something to say and not end up getting cornered if they do so. Like the people in school that just went with the stream without really learning anything.

Yeah agreed. Kinda like when trying to teach old relatives about tech things and they come from a generation not really keen on studying at all. So their goodie bag isnt exactly filled with useful learning tools and the thing you try to teach them about looks like something that came from outer space to them.

Exactly. New tech is indeed neutral. I think we have too many people at both ends, those that write it off because they only paint up terror scenarios that can come from it aswell as those that greenlight everything related to it since thy only see the good. When in reality we should look at the whole and then try to safe guard and prepare so the doomsday scenarios of Mr. Gloomy wont happen as the implementations of Ms. Utopia run rampant. And then as time goes we can use the data to adjust if needed incase we went too harsh on restrictions or too light.

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Agreed, but this is also where I was really personally fortunate. Since I grew up with a library near me, and if not? I might have ended up as a statistic or negative example of a person. I loved learning from an early age, and it stuck with me all that time. Unfortunately quite a lot of people have bad experiences with learning, schools, education, due to multiple reasons, and its, well its a shame. I also then got a scholarship because I I probably spent so much time in a library learning, and got access to an even better library! Not all are as fortunate as I am though, its not something people should take for granted. 

Granted I might be looking at it with rose tinted goggles because here we have libraries everywhere. If we had more we'd have libraries inside the libraries (oh wait I think we do!). I can see how if someone grows up in a Detroit ghetto or something that they might not have the easiest way to get to a library, or that a school doesnt have one that is exactly up to date and so on. Which also mean their upbringing will color their view on things.

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Makes me think of all the places that don't want to teach evolution, or places where a politician will talk about tax cuts for "everyone", but then actual data and looking at actual details of such bills, end up clearly showing that only very certain wealthy benefitted from such tax cuts, but then people still getting hype or supporting that politician regardless. Or the encroachment of PragerU into many of the USA' actual education systems. Or and this is more world wide, peoples understanding of socioeconomic mobility and how this relates to ideas and perceptions of success, value, worth, effort and then how those relate to everything else, like how deserves what and why, how financial systems should work, how resources should be divided and so on. Then how many's people perception is the opposite of reality, but even in the places with the best socioeconomic mobility, things can still be better (Sweden is usually quite up there), and one reason for that is indeed because of your guys education system being relatively better than a lot. 

Yeah our education system does alot. And I think it is because our public schools are great, so are our community colleges and such, and those that monitor it all and make sure curicilums are followed etc. really crack down when it isnt the case and too much "hippy" influence is part of it. I mean we practically have free schools here. Even if we need to take loans for higher education it is very forgiving. Graduate and have a hard time finding a proper job to pay it off? That's cool, just tell us and we'll lower it until you get on your feet. Practically no extra interest and such either. So we really have the foundation to become knowedgable people.

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Sounds spicy, plus its all webcast right?

Yep, think it is one of those things that can be watched in Sweden only. I find it fully fair that they SweDem got caught with their pants down since I think that method of going about things against your opponent(s) is highly ridiculous. I mean, if you have something to point out, then do so in the open and stand for it. However, no need to throw a temper tantrum like the other parties did over it either. It's like one big kindergarden yelling fight imo, with only one party sitting there and trying to be sensible. A party I didnt even vote on in the last election, but they get my full respect for being factual and constructive instead of children on their tummy flailing and screaming.

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Oh, sorry to hear about their passing, but happy you got so long with them. 16 is pretty impressive! Sounds like it was basically your childhood friend really. 

Hah, that second one sounds like one of the tom cats in my area. Very loud, use to see it a lot in different places, pretty sure it survived of scraps from multiple places, but also a bit too aggressive. 

Thanks for the convo. 

Hehe thanks. Long time ago now. And yeah it was really a close childhood friend.

Love those types of cats. They become their own person.

You too!

 

 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

12 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I think the lack of research has alot to do with people just wanting to have "fun". Like you say it is much like television for them. That they think they have an idea that is correct and dont want to spend time on checking if it is correct or not. Also I think it comes down to them not having to face consequences of being wrong if they are, since no one knows them on the other side of the screen. Kinda like all the toxic people in PvP games that can just be as vile as possible because they wont end up in the real life situation where they might end up loosing their teeth. 

Many also come to the internet from an already exsisting group of equals. So they are already in the mindset that they are correct because they surround themselves with people that are of the same opinion day out and day in. I think it is why I'm so open, since my friend circles all the way back since my school days have been made up of people from both corners of the ring aswell as the ref in the center heh. And we always got along when together, even if the ends werent normaly friends, they shared friends within the group and managed to get along due to it. And I guess parts of that was also because it wasnt so easy for them to be an ass towards the other when everyone was around to observe it, so whatever went down would have consequences. Unlike online, where no one will really know.

 

Those kind of sound like good reasons as to why someone lacks in having done research though too. Also you are very much right about the consequences aspect, but it gets even more accurate, because humans, by in large and generally, are also really really bad at consequences when it comes to long term consequences even more than short term. its why a lot of countries have to push out saving and investment plans so hard, because a lot of young or middle aged people can lack care for that sort of thing. In education as well, sometimes its not just about consequences, but incentives as well. So for like good teachers and parents, its often better way to teach children, to go for positive incentives, as opposed to negative consequences, like punishments. Which can also often explain the differences in peoples social behaviours and attitudes. 

Like with your own experience, thats pretty good understanding you have of yourself, and your own development, but also a good insight into why some people can be so close minded as well. My background is similar too, I had a lot of diverse friends, more so in my teens, then later in life friends from all over the world. 

 

19 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

IMO internet should be a human right considering what it can provide the individual. Or if we look at the Ukraine conflict, how much an external free source for internet has done when their own wasnt available. If I was Musk I'd make sure to cover the whole planet in Starlink so everyone has access to internet, even in the darkest and most obscure places.

 

Yep I agree as well. Good example you gave too. There are lots of generally good reasons and arguments as well beyond the ethical and moral ones, and many countries would benefit, in multiple ways. Some of peoples favourite future books, games, or media, may be from people who currently lack access to the Internet/technology. Same with people contributing to various fields, like medicine and science. 

 

23 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Granted I might be looking at it with rose tinted goggles because here we have libraries everywhere. If we had more we'd have libraries inside the libraries (oh wait I think we do!). I can see how if someone grows up in a Detroit ghetto or something that they might not have the easiest way to get to a library, or that a school doesnt have one that is exactly up to date and so on. Which also mean their upbringing will color their view on things.

 

Basically yeah, but this is where above is important too, and can help. Its funny, because I quickly wanted to double check on what my countries position on Internet as a human right was, and one of the links was about your country Sweden pushing for Internet Freedom in more countries, which dates back to 2013. Good on you guys. 

Oh, and I didn't quote all your points or address everything. I just didn't really have much more to add, I pretty much agree with the rest of it, generally, and it was also really nice to learn about your history with cats too. That was sweet. If there was anything you think I should have addressed, feel free to let me know, as always! 

 

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

10 hours ago, Genitive said:

Oh no, won't someone think about the poor bigots...

You're either trying to take me out of context or you didn't read what I'm trying to say. I am not siding with the bigots. I am trying to point out how the West is not as homophobic as you think

Edited June 10 by R3dIgnisDrag0n200

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

 

What side do you mean? Which people?

 

 

 

I'm mostly talking about the people on the Left, because there are some, if not, a lot of people on the Left that believe that since White people are the majority in the US or have the most influence then you can't be racist against White people. Which is not true

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

13 minutes ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

I'm mostly talking about the people on the Left, because there are some, if not, a lot of people on the Left that believe that since White people are the majority in the US or have the most influence then you can't be racist against White people. Which is not true

 

Thanks for clarifying. 

Incidentally, I assumed as much and addressed that in my reply above as well. So its all good. Short answer, I think its more accurate to say it depends on the context used. Its a bit like theory. Scientifically speaking, scientific theory is very very different to how many use theory colloquially or informally. Well, depending on the person, some nerdy people like me, often use the more academic term, all the time, even if I acknowledge and discern other peoples more casual use. A lot of people when they say they have a theory, haven't gathered observations and data, created a hypothesis, tested it, experimented,, refined such processes and then gathered enough conclusions to then make a theory, and then built on that. They usually just hypothesis (or make a guess). Academically there can be value in distinction between power structures, power imbalances and systemic prejudices, and context and more mundane exchanges of bigotry. For the reason and sake of implementing solutions to such issues. Different issues, different solutions. 

Personally speaking though, as someone who isn't from the USA, and whose area has multiple types of minorities, from different countries, well its less black and white here, (pun slightly intended), I kind of think the distinction should just be worded differently and better. If a young Indian girl living in America is being bullied by a young Polynesian girl, who is making insulting remarks about the Indian girls culture and ethnicity, I think it can be potentially confusing if she sees people insist its not racism, just because its not systemic, and even more potentially confusing when introduced with ideas like internalised racism/oppression. Like I said though, I've never actually met someone who was stubbornly only insistent on one definition, without applying context. Such people probably do exist, but yeah. 

Cheers and thanks!! 

[Genitive]

44 minutes ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

You're either trying to take me out of context or you didn't read what I'm trying to say. I am not siding with the bigots. I am trying to point out how the West is not as homophobic as you think

Well, your full post makes it look even worse. 

 

Look.

14 hours ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

We were forced into these DEI and woke stuff, we didn't want these things in our faces, especially when we just wanted to relax, get away from the problems of society, and just enjoy our time with video games and/or movies, anime, you name it. This is all happening because we are being forced to accept things and play by these rules that we just didn't want in the first place, or just didn't exactly care much about.

This is quite bigoted. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Your refusal to accept "DEI and woke stuff" is entirely on you. If you have an issue with it in entertainment, then I suggest finding a different hobby, because it's not going away. We live in more and more tolerant society and whether you like it or not, non-heteronormative people are going to appear more often.

It's not diversity that is bad, it's bad writing. Look at Baldur's Gate 3, it had plenty of diversity, yet it is universally praised. On the other hand, let's say Star Wars sequel trilogy is not that good, but not because of diversity, but because of poor script and lack of planning. In fact, the sequel trilogy doesn't have that much diversity at all.

14 hours ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Because a lot of times in the West, people who spread anti-LGBT stuff tend to get shunned, humiliated, and even laughed at by others. This isn't the 1950s anymore where gay people have to fear everything. Like I said, the vast majority of the West just doesn't care if you're gay

That's not entirely true. The west is much safer for LGBT+ than those other countries, but saying they have nothing to fear is a stretch. Some countries still don't allow same-sex marriages, child adoption, or even more basic things like access to medical care. And that's without anti-LGBT legislature or politicians downright using them as scarecrows.

Have some links about it.

Spoiler

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/cy/lgbtq-facts-and-figures

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/widespread-discrimination-continues-shape-lgbt-peoples-lives-subtle-significant-ways/

https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-2024

https://translegislation.com/

 

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

2 hours ago, Genitive said:

If you have an issue with it in entertainment, then I suggest finding a different hobby, because it's not going away.

Here's the thing, you people came into our communities like puritans and demanded that certain words not get said online or in voice chats because it hurts your feelings. I've been playing online video games for many, many years. I was called almost every slur under the sun at this point, and look, I'm still here. Its just S#&$ talking online that people engage in. Can it get toxic? Yes. However, dictating speech and crying about how someone said mean things to you in a game and demanding change over it isn't exactly going to solve it. At the end of the day, you're no one special. I got called many things online throughout the years, so what? They're just dumbasses saying stupid S#&$, you can talk crap back at them or just block/mute them. Just going into a community and demanding everything get changed to your standards is just stupid, and telling people to change for your sake will never work in your favor. People will just end up doing the opposite because at the end of the day, people don't like being told what to do or how to think.

2 hours ago, Genitive said:

It's not diversity that is bad, it's bad writing. Look at Baldur's Gate 3, it had plenty of diversity, yet it is universally praised. On the other hand, let's say Star Wars sequel trilogy is not that good, but not because of diversity, but because of poor script and lack of planning. In fact, the sequel trilogy doesn't have that much diversity at all.

Its not just the bad writing, its also the obvious tokenism that a lot of AAA companies are engaging in and have been engaging in for the past few years. For an example, getting an old character from the original source material and then in the remake, just out of no where changing their sexuality or race just for some social brownie points. People get fed up with this as well, if you don't think like this and you still wanna get the game, go for it, but don't call for people whos opinions you don't like to be hidden or deleted, because that's only gonna snowball and get worse.

Take a look at these if you don't believe me

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Example 5

[Genitive]

6 minutes ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Here's the thing, you people came into our communities like puritans and demanded that certain words not get said online or in voice chats because it hurts your feelings. I've been playing online video games for many, many years. I was called almost every slur under the sun at this point, and look, I'm still here. Its just S#&$ talking online that people engage in. Can it get toxic? Yes. However, dictating speech and crying about how someone said mean things to you in a game and demanding change over it isn't exactly going to solve it. At the end of the day, you're no one special. I got called many things online throughout the years, so what? They're just dumbasses saying stupid S#&$, you can talk crap back at them or just block/mute them.

Asking people to behave is not being puritan. It's basic culture. If you're upset when someone asks you not to insult them, then I don't know what to tell you. Ask for better moderation of games you play, maybe. Just because you can deal with toxicity doesn't mean it has to be the norm.

 

42 minutes ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Just going into a community and demanding everything get changed to your standards is just stupid, and telling people to change for your sake will never work in your favor. People will just end up doing the opposite because at the end of the day, people don't like being told what to do or how to think.

That's very, very ironic, considering gamers will do just that when they don't like something. I suppose some of us only understand the language they themselves use.

 

24 minutes ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Its not just the bad writing, its also the obvious tokenism that a lot of AAA companies are engaging in and have been engaging in for the past few years. For an example, getting an old character from the original source material and then in the remake, just out of no where changing their sexuality or race just for some social brownie points.

But an example like this also boils down to how it is written. In Battlestar Galactica remake they changed one of the main characters from male to female and it was a change for the better.

 

 

I only quickly looked through your examples. The first 2 articles seem pretty interesting. I'm not sure why you linked them here, because you painted this picture of tokenism and how companies exploit it, but the articles seem to provide valid reasons for diversity and representation.

As for the rest, I don't know. SBI is just a scarecrow gamers use to justify their rants. Unreal engine's guidelines are nothing really special, and also seem to be blown out of proportion. And the Pokemon Go seems unrelated. They botched the character creator and people were justifiably upset, but I doubt it was caused by their desire for inclusivity. They could have easily achieved that without breaking the character models. Unless you have a source for this reason, then sure, feel free to link it.

[pinkxblack]

yall know what, i pointed it out the FACT that we are living in a STRAIGHT WHITE MALE world (and i hate it btw) in my previous post, then it got deleted by some administrator, that explains alot...

Edited June 10 by pinkxblack

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

24 minutes ago, pinkxblack said:

yall know what, i pointed it out the FACT that we are living in a STRAIGHT WHITE MALE world (and i hate it btw) in my previous post, then it got deleted by some administrator, that explains alot...

With good intentions or not, typing like a wild person won't get you anywhere. 

This applies to literally everything in life: tact, grace, proper grammar and manners.

[Berzerkules]

1 hour ago, R3dIgnisDrag0n200 said:

Here's the thing, you people came into our communities like puritans and demanded that certain words not get said online or in voice chats because it hurts your feelings. I've been playing online video games for many, many years. I was called almost every slur under the sun at this point, and look, I'm still here. Its just S#&$ talking online that people engage in. Can it get toxic? Yes. However, dictating speech and crying about how someone said mean things to you in a game and demanding change over it isn't exactly going to solve it. At the end of the day, you're no one special. I got called many things online throughout the years, so what? They're just dumbasses saying stupid S#&$, you can talk crap back at them or just block/mute them. Just going into a community and demanding everything get changed to your standards is just stupid, and telling people to change for your sake will never work in your favor. People will just end up doing the opposite because at the end of the day, people don't like being told what to do or how to think.

The things I've heard said in chat in games would get people knocked tf out if they said that stuff in real life. There is no repercussions in a game severe enough for the things people say so there is going to be some moderation. 

You say the wrong thing around the right people and you're not going say anything for a long time.

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

1 hour ago, pinkxblack said:

yall know what, i pointed it out the FACT that we are living in a STRAIGHT WHITE MALE world (and i hate it btw) in my previous post, then it got deleted by some administrator, that explains alot...

Really? Because I'm a Latino and I don't feel threatened or anything, not only that, in mainstream culture, its basically the norm to insult White people

[pinkxblack]

37分钟前 , (PSN)Madurai-Prime 说:

With good intentions or not, typing like a wild person won't get you anywhere. 

This applies to literally everything in life: tact, grace, proper grammar and manners.

why @me??? i was talking about a big picture back then not mention anyone specific, did you even know what i said before??? who is the wild one without any manners here...

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

25 minutes ago, Berzerkules said:

The things I've heard said in chat in games would get people knocked tf out if they said that stuff in real life.

Well, I guess that's the thing about the internet, I mean, I'm not really innocent on that either because I've said quite a lot online throughout the years as well, but I don't think anyone here is a saint either

26 minutes ago, Berzerkules said:

There is no repercussions in a game severe enough for the things people say so there is going to be some moderation. 

You say the wrong thing around the right people and you're not going say anything for a long time.

Fine, I understand that some things have to be moderated, but I mean, when someone makes something like

Quote

hurr, you suck at the game you pu**y

into an even bigger deal than what it is, then its like ok, you need to calm down a bit

[pinkxblack]

6分钟前 , R3dIgnisDrag0n200 说:

Really? Because I'm a Latino and I don't feel threatened or anything, not only that, in mainstream culture, its basically the norm to insult White people

you called thats an INSULT? omg then if you say so, im speechless.